Taliskravaganza! Day 2: Talisker 57º North (original label)

Day 1: Talisker 10 year old
Day 2: Talisker 57º North

For all my whining about the limited variety in Diageo's distilleries' single malts, they have put some effort into Talisker's range.  There's a variety of age statements, a sherry finish, and three new NASes.  There's also the 57º North.  Released initially into travel retail in 2008, 57º North started showing up in European retailer shops a couple years later.

So, what's in a name?  The Talisker distillery sits at 57º North latitude (or approximately 57°18'08.4"N 6°21'24.5"W, please don't ask how long I was manually tinkering with Google Maps to hit that number).  But the whisky is also bottled at 57%ABV, which Diageo mouthpiece Nick Morgan refers to as "almost at cask strength" and "virtually at cask strength" in Roskrow's 1001 Whiskies book.  He also admits that not having an age statement "gives us greater flexibility with it."  For all my criticism of Morgan (none of which do I take back), this is a shocking bit of honesty and disclosure by The Diageo Man.  Almost every whisky producer calls their high ABV releases "cask strength" even though very often the releases are not in fact bottled at the actual strength of the whisky in the cask.  So, 57% is what 57º North is bottled at, a very high strength for a Diageo release.

I was excited to try this.  I've always eyed it via the online European retailers, but didn't want to go in on a bottle blindly.  So, I bought a sample from Master of Malt.  Then while reading up about 57º North, I saw that it's matured only in refill ex-bourbon casks.  That made me wonder, would this be more like the Talisker I ♡ed so?

Distillery: Talisker

Ownership: Diageo

Region: Isle of Skye

Type: Single Malt Whisky

Maturation: refill ex-bourbon casks

Age: NAS

Alcohol by Volume: 57% (or 100 UK proof)

NEAT
The color is medium gold, noticeably lighter than the 10 year old.  On the nose there's ocean air, lemon peel, pine sappy peat, vanilla syrup, milk chocolate, and cardamom.  There's a little bit of buttery oak, but much less than on the 10.  Then I'm finding the following: cumin, chili powder, and curry with lime juice (no one else is finding these notes so maybe I'm crazy).  Finally, there's a soft development of baklava with lavender syrup.  The palate leads with chili powder, peat smoke, and dried grasses. Minerally, salty. Mint ice cream, cinnamon candy, and a malt wallop.  It finishes long, lean, and grassy.  Notes of vanilla beans, cinnamon, peat moss, and soil linger together.

Oh hot damn.

WITH WATER
Water brings more fruit and brighter spices out of the nose.  It's still grassy.  Maybe herbal, like a crisp gin.  And then some of that cinnamon candy.  The palate is still lean and salty.  There's the hay note, along with milky coffee and lime.  A sweetness appears then quickly dissolves.  Puffs of smoke in the finish, along with a light bitterness.  Some vanilla beans and caramel sauce.

This is my jam.

It's got the arse-kicking youth.  The oak doesn't get out of hand.  It's grassy, minerally, salty, and seaside-y.  And since it's already at the beach, it can swim.  It's not hugely complex on the palate, but its minimalism is solid.  And even if those eastern spice notes were figments of my nasal passages, the whisky noses nicely.

When it first came out, one could grab a bottle from Europe for $70-$80 including shipping.  In fact it was still less than $90 a couple years ago.  But now, unless you put together a big order, it's tough to get it for less than $100.  Some of this has to do with gradual price increases, but it's mostly due to the fact that the USD isn't doing so well against the EUR and GBP.  If you're a person who's already paying $85-$90 for Glenfarclas 105, then this sort of pricing probably won't scare you off.  Though some of the rest of us would be nervous about laying out that kind of cash.

But do we have to go through Europe to get the 57ºNorth?  Well......the American TTB approved this label in June 2013.  So are we going to get this dang bottle or what?  And what are you going to charge us?  Oh, er, I mean never mind.  I'm supposed to be boycotting Diageo.  Super.

Availability - Europe and duty free

Pricing - $95-$120 (700mL) depending on order size; some duty free shops have a full liter for 75GBP ($125) which is a better $/mL ratio.

Rating - 91

Taliskravaganza! Day 1: Talisker 10 year old

Now let's all take a deep breath and put aside our Diageo quibbles for as much of this post as possible.  Forget that Diageo came into being as a company only via massive levels of trading fraud.  Disremember their rigging of an independent beer competition.  Ignore the devastating satirical piece by Whisky Advocate entitled "Distillery of the Year 2013".  Brush away thoughts of Diageo forcing a new bloated luxury brand on the market, one named Mortlach, a distillery that sounds like it means Lake of Death.  You can disregard all of that, right?

Talisker is my favorite of Diageo's 7,348 distilleries.  And Talisker 10 year old was always my favorite of their "Classic Malts".  It always delivers.  It's not so peated that one can't drink it in the summer, and it works excellently in autumn.  The balanced seaside nose is one of the very few I may be able to pick out at a blind tasting.  And it was the single malt that I was going to miss most when I chose to commit to my Diageo boycott.

The bottle I'm reviewing here is the only Diageo whisky I've purchased in the last year and a half.  Because I'd heard/read a bunch of complaints about Talisker 10's quality slipping, I aimed to buy a bottle from before the late-2012 packaging change.  Since I was going for a whole bottle, I wanted something that was more like the Talisker I remembered.  It sat in the cabinet for six months before I opened it.  To my surprise, the bottle code said that it was in fact from 2012, probably one of the last using the earlier simpler label and packaging.  I thought it was older than that.  No worries, I'll just open it up.  Pour a glass.

I nosed it and -- to quote a household inside joke -- "The f**k is this nonsense?"  Really huge new oak notes, not dissimilar to that of the recent K&L Bowmore, poured out of my glass.  The classic Talisker character was submerged deeply underneath.

Half of me was worried that this was what my parting memory of Talisker 10 would be like.  Half of me was happy, because it would make Talisker easier to part with.  Half of me figured it just needed some time to open up.  I went with the third half.

This review comes from about a quarter of the way down the bottle.  Considerable Talisker was consumed for the sake of these notes.

Distillery: Talisker

Ownership: Diageo

Region: Isle of Skye

Type: Single Malt Whisky

Maturation: Probably mostly refill ex-bourbon casks, though perhaps some refill ex-sherries too

Age: minimum 10 years
Bottled: April 2012

Alcohol by Volume: 45.8%

NEAT
The color is a very dark gold, GlenDronach single sherry cask dark gold.  Why the f*** do they insist on dumping in so much colorant?  Much more bold stinky oak on the nose than I remember there ever being.  As in, brand new heavy char mixed with sugary honey butter.  Maybe a hint of oloroso?  But then...in rolls the good part.  The beach: wet sand and seashells.  Earthy molasses, toasty peat, barley in brown sugar.  Then stray cats in the sun, wool, brown paper bag.  Finally, anise swoops in.  A casual, lazy, easy like Sunday morning peat drifts into the palate.  At first the flavor develops from buttery savory → peppery peat smoke → brown sugar.  Then there's some barley with a tart bite, along with some rye-whiskey-like spices, and the sweetness never gets too big.  A buzzy pepper hits first and last in the finish.  A little salt, mild tartness, grapefruit pulp, and a very distant smoke lingers in between.

WITH WATER (reduced to 40%ABV)
The nose becomes mild but candied.  Honey, anise, a hint of smoke, and a little farmy hay.  Then there's the barrel char, something corny, and lime peel.  The palate...Hello? Anyone home? After a few minutes it quietly appears. Goodbye peat.  Hello apricots, vanilla, and toasted grains.  It's sweeter, tarter, and lightly farmy.  The peat and pepper come back in the finish, along with orange peel and salt.

Pros:  Once the oak subsides, the nose is very good; Talisker 10 still lurks within Talisker 10.  On the palate, the mellow peat melds with the peppery zing with its usual flair.  And it's all very very drinkable.

Cons:  Aside from silly levels of colorant?  Though the new oak notes recede as the bottle is gradually relieved of its contents, they're still there and I don't think it complements the beachy, earthy, toasty characteristics well.  The finish is much briefer than I expected and very simplistic.  That's fine for a $40 whisky, but this isn't $40 anymore.

I realize I've been focusing on the negative a bit.  I hold Talisker 10 to high standards.  It's very good and nearly unmatched at its age.  It's still lovely to drink and even better to nose for a while.  I still recommend it, though see if you can find it for $50 or less.  And look for older bottles!

Before this review, I was probably more enthralled by the idea of Talisker 10 and my past experience with it rather than the current reality.  (Thus some of my recent goofy tweets about my romance with it.)  The whisky is very good, but it's no longer excellent.  Something has changed in its construction and I think it's the oak.  While I have no proof, this is another example of what makes me think that there's some aggressive cask manipulation going on at some distilleries.  An overuse of casks; recharring like crazy to bring forth vanillins from tired old barrels.  So, if you like simple oak, you're in luck.  But if you want more barley and complex spirit character......this is what I'm talking about when I say we're paying more for less.  Talisker 10 is now $65 at many retailers.  While I like this whisky a lot, I would not pay that price.

The romance is over.  Now it's just a whisky that I used to know.

Availability - Most specialty liquor retailers

Pricing - $50 (yay!) - $70 (boo)

Rating - 87 (I thought this was going to be 90+ before I opened the bottle)

The Taliskravaganza begins tomorrow...

Six days, Six Taliskers.  Three this week, three next week.  Some you may be expecting, some you won't.  Talisker Storm not included.

I was actually going to start in with the fun today, but then Diageo dropped the pricing and bottling news about their new Mortlach range (see here and here).  Worldwide facepalming ensued.  Dr. Nick Morgan once again demonstrated that (as if in a Monty Python sketch) he is being paid to insult the intelligence of his company's customers -- seriously, check out the quotes he gave for Roskrow's article.  And some of us were left wondering why Diageo is attempting to out-Macallan Macallan by going the Full Dalmore on the struggling Asian market.

Meanwhile, I wanted to approach Talisker's single malts with a positive, maybe even wistful, spin.  Especially since these may be my final Talisker reviews.  Thus I delayed the start of Taliskravaganza one day...

Single Malt Report: "Island Distillery" 7 year old 2005 Exclusive Malts (K&L exclusive)

In December, I reviewed K&L's exclusive Bowmore 2002 from the Exclusive Malts series.
In January, I reviewed K&L's exclusive Aberlour 2000 from the Exclusive Malts series.

The Bowmore report came from my own personal bottle.  The whisky did not show well at the top of the bottle, but improved a measure or two with oxidation.  Due to my very positive experience with independently released ex-bourbon cask Bowmores, I had high expectations for the whisky.  It did not meet those expectations.  Ultimately, I wasn't that crazy about it, though it wasn't terrible.  I'd hoped for a B+/A- whisky but got a B- one instead.  Meanwhile the Aberlour report came from a 2oz sample received in a swap.  Though it was slightly better, it was just as aggressively oaky and unbalanced as the Bowmore.

That last point made me (and some others) wonder if this was a problem with all of K&L's exclusive Exclusive Malts from this round.  I've had a number of other single casks bottled by David Stirk's company and had never experienced this weird oak element in them.

Today, thanks again to Florin, I'll be taking a few extended sips and sniffs of the "Island Distillery" single cask.  I had heard unofficially that the mystery whisky was Ledaig, Tobermory's peated malt.  Having now consumed it on multiple occasions, I can confirm this "Island" whisky must be Ledaig.

Distillery: "Island" (probably Tobermory's peated Ledaig)

Independent Bottler: The Creative Whisky Co. Ltd.
Series: The Exclusive Malts
Retailer: K&L only

Age: November 2005 - 2013 (7 years)

Maturation: "Oak Casks" (no way!)
Cask number: 8
Bottle #:  ??? of 274

Region: Island, likely Isle of Mull

Alcohol by Volume: 57.2%
Chillfiltered: No
Colored: No

NEAT
It has my favorite whisky color: five-beer piss.  The nose starts with hearty dank peat, lead, seaweed, and hot city concrete.  Aw yeah, Ledaig weirdness.  There's some grassy Tobermory notes underneath the peat.  Then whole spices like nutmeg and cardamom, sharp salty cheddar, and anise.  Vanilla, white vinegar, along with a hint of tennis ball fuzz.  There's a moment of new oakiness, but it's smothered by the big spirit.  The palate is full of burnt hair, burnt paper, and charcoal.  Balancing that out is some brown sugar, hard tack candy, caramel sauce, and the spices from the nose.  There's also a subtle salty seaweed and smoked white fish thing going on.  The finish is tart and briny, sweet and ashy, all rolling along in one solid package.  Maybe some fish grilled over charcoals.

WITH WATER
The complexity is reduced in the nose, but so are the rough spots.  Vanilla, brine, salty cheese, sugars, and maybe some swimming pool notes remain.  The palate is barley-er, salty, and yeasty.  There's tart peat, beef jerky, and mild caramel sweetness.  Vanilla emerges over time.  The finish is yeasty as well, along with wood smoke, caramel, and more vanilla.

In case anyone thought that I am out to crap all over K&L's picks, may this be Exhibit B to disprove such nonsense.  (I also loved their Caperdonich single cask from last year, yummy.)  This is my kind of Ledaig.  I like it much better than the 2x-priced 2005 Blackadder Ledaig bottle I struggled through last year.  While I appreciated the Blackadder's scorched-earth approach, it was a mite too-poisonous at times.  This Exclusive Malts "Island Distillery" version doesn't hold anything back either but is deeper and much more balanced.

But it's still an infant whisky.  And it's Ledaig (er, "Island").  You read those notes in the neat section.......do those sorts of things gross you out?  If yes, then this ain't your game.  Water doesn't kill it, but does tame it a little.  This isn't an anytime malt, unless you're an ice fisher in the arctic.  It's a whisky you bust out when your loved ones have gone to bed because no one's going to want to kiss you after you drink it.  Well, maybe a sea lion would.  A cigar smoking sea lion.

"Darling, you've gotten into the Ledaig stash again, haven't you?"

Availability - K&L Wines

Pricing - $59.99

Rating - 87

Single Malt Report: Glen Mhor 26 year old 1978 Scott's Selection

On Monday, I celebrated my half birthday, which is something all five-and-a-half year old grownups do.  On my actual birthdays, I sample a whisky my age alongside a whisky that was distilled during my birth year.  So yesterday, I thought I'd do half of that approach by opening up a sample of Glen Mhor 1978.

Thank you to Eric S. for another great sample and super great label!

There's a funny story about this whisky, a story that isn't actually funny so I'll keep it to a paragraph.

In September and October 2012, I attended two Scott's Selections tastings.  Both times Glen Mhor 1978 was part of the lineup.  Both times I liked it very much.  I had recently opened up my first official birthday whisky (Balblair 1978) and wasn't sure what the next one would be......until I tried the Glen Mhor.  It was the right year, it was delicious, it was $40 cheaper than my Balblair, and it was from a closed distillery!  My first dead distillery bottle!  So excited.  Then, despite what the distributor rep said, it was not in stock.  And despite what the distributor rep said later, it would not be available in a few weeks.  Three months later, I got an email that Glen Mhor was in stock.  I bought a bottle.  Fast forward to August 2013, I was (and am) still working on the Balblair Birthday Bottle, but I thought I'd admire the Glen Mhor bottle a bit.  I took out my tasting notes from ten months earlier to imagine what I'd be drinking on a future birthday.  That's when I noticed my notes said "Glen Mhor 1978-2001, 56.6% ABV".  The bottle I bought was 1978-2004, 56.0% ABV.  Though it's three years older, it ain't the same whisky.  Then I started hearing muted enthusiasm by the folks who had tried the 2004.  Though, I was happy to see My Annoying Opinions give it a positive review in December.

Ultimately, after the distributor put up two runaround/delays about the whisky, they then released a whisky that was different than the one they were providing at tastings.  I don't have buyer's remorse, but I am a little irked about this.  Going forward I will be even more cautious about my purchases.  And I'm very very thankful that reader Eric S. sent me a sample from his bottle so that could find out what my future whisky might actually taste like.

Distillery: Glen Mhor (pronounced "vor")
Former Owner: DCL (proto-Diageo)
Bottler: Scott's Selection
Age: 26-ish years (1978 - 2004)
Maturation: "Oakwood Casks" (how helpful!)
Region: Northern Highlands, right next to Speyside
Alcohol by Volume: 56.0%

NEAT
The color is light gold.  My bottle pic on the right is looking a little dark.  The nose starts very simply: vanillas, caramels, mellow barley spirit, and Juicy Fruit gum.  But with a little bit of air the whisky starts to develop some Glenmorangie-ish citrus.  Orange, citron, and cardamom.  Then there's mint leaf.  A peach with pencil lead stuck in it.  Citronella meets vanilla.  Or does citron + vanilla = citronella?  After almost thirty minutes of air: lemon juice, hay, and butterscotch arise.  The palate is less exciting.  Hot cereal alternating with orange candy.  Vanilla and toffee meet orange, lemon, and lime peels.  And that fruit element grows with time.  Brown sugar starts peeking out later on.  There's a bit of alcohol heat that mellows after a while.  I keep feeling like there's something graceful lurking in the distance, but it never arrives.  At first, the finish alternates between sweet and butyric (like someone burped up that hot cereal), but then here comes the citrus oils, bubblegum, and a wee floral peep.  Rock candy and toffee as well.

WITH WATER
Something almost phenolic (Band-Aids?) appears in the nose, though the distillers did not peat their malt.  Then coconut and vanilla, as if this was a single grain.  But with time, it straightens out.  Caramel sauce, the oranges and cardamom, saline nasal spray, cucumber, fresh apples, and lemon peel.  The palate is a sweetie.  Tart too.  Orange pixie stix, vanilla frosting, apple juice, and some fresh cut grass.  The finish is intensely sweet.  Straight white sugar.  The tart citrus rolls in later on.

Scott's labeling says "Matured in Oakwood casks".  They should add "Bottled in glass".  I'm a little confused about what sort of "Oakwood" was utilized.  MAO found some sherry notes when reviewing this whisky.  Meanwhile I'm finding all sorts of vanillas, butterscotch, coconut, and caramels.  Could this have been a refill sherry cask fashioned from American oak?  We do both find loads of citrus all over the whisky, and we both prefer the nose over the palate.

I wasn't particularly disappointed by the whisky.  It's a very drinkable sweetie that proves to be another boldly citric Highlander.  But it doesn't establish itself as unique in anyway, thus if I were to add emphasis in the previous sentence I'd say it's another boldly citric Highlander.  Despite this, I am glad Scott's salvaged a cask or two of Glen Mhor, bottled it for us all, and gave it a decent price (in the current market, at least).

My notes for the 2001 bottling say "graceful, mellow, and malty".  I still would have preferred that version since I was and am loathe to spend this sort of money on a single bottle.  I'm going to leave my bottle of this 2004 closed for a few more years.

Availability - A few liquor shops in the US

Pricing - $140-$180

Rating - 85

3 Beams (aka The 4, 6, and 8 year old Beam Bourbon Taste Off)

This past week, Diving for Pearls received some very generous recognition by The Savory.  Thank you, Ross.  To quote Jack Benny, "I don't deserve this award, but I have arthritis and I don't deserve that either."

And how do I respond to an honoring of this Scotch blog?  By posting about bourbon, of course.  Ah, bourbon: the whisk(e)y with which I have the second least experience.  (Canadian whisky, don't you get comfortable either.)

---

A couple weeks ago, I reviewed a Beam-era Old Taylor 6 year old bottled in 1996.  Since then I picked up minis (always the best representation of a whisky <---sarcasm) of Jim Beam White Label and Jim Beam Black Label.  I was going to do this Taste Off in May, but I was much too excited to wait...

Sorry, I'll stop the sarcasm.  I get very little pleasure out of Beam's American whiskey products.  Beam produces some of the best single malts in Scotland, but I have considerable difficulty unearthing joy while drinking their bourbons.

But I did sort of like the Beam-era Old Taylor 6 year old, so it raised my hopes.  Was I warming up to Beam?  Or is Beam's current bourbon different than their older stuff?  As mentioned, the Old Taylor was bottled in 1996, thus the youngest bourbon in its mix was distilled in 1990.  The White Label was bottled in October 2013 (per the bottle code), so its youngest ingredient was distilled in 2009.  The Black Label was also bottled in October 2013 (per the bottle code), its youngest ingredient would have been distilled in 2005.

Preconceptions:
Jim Beam White Label (4 years old) - I'm going to shift keys for a moment.  Twelve years ago, someone very close to me died younger than he should have and I have considerable reason to believe that Jim Beam White Label was one of the lead culprits.  So, I have a very primal reaction when I see handles of JB White Label on sale for $19.99.  Whether this has influenced my own very negative opinion of the bourbon itself can be debated.  But it has been a long time since I've tried the stuff.

Old Taylor 6 years old (bottled 1996) - Here's my post from February.  I liked the bourbon.  Had it had any sort of finish, I would have liked it even more and would've felt comfortable recommending it to you all.  Yet, at $4 for a 200mL (if you can find this particular bottling) it's not a stressful expenditure.

Jim Beam Black Label (8 years old) - This is what I drink on planes.  Seriously, United Airlines seems to have this in their carts all the time.  But due to the heavy vibrations, air pressure changes, and low humidity, air travel has kept me from fully experiencing the whiskey.  This is my first time drinking it at sea level.

Here are the fighters:

Owner: Beam, Inc
Brand: Jim Beam White Label
Distillery: Jim Beam Distillery
Location: Clermont, Kentucky
Mash Bill: Standard 15% rye (probably)
Age: minimum 4 years old
ABV: 40% ABV
Bottle year: 2013





Owner: Beam, Inc. at time of bottling, but now owned by Sazerac
Brand: Old Taylor
Distillery: Jim Beam Distillery
Location: Clermont, Kentucky
Mash Bill: Standard 15% rye (probably)
Age: minimum 6 years old
ABV: 40% ABV
Bottle year: 1996

Owner: Beam, Inc
Brand: Jim Beam Black Label
Distillery: Jim Beam Distillery
Location: Clermont, Kentucky
Mash Bill: Standard 15% rye (probably)
Age: minimum 8 years old
ABV: 43% ABV
Bottle year: 2013



All of these were sampled neatly in Glencairns glasses.  As a change of pace, the notes are shown list-style to allow for easier comparison.

JIM BEAM WHITE LABEL (2013)
Color - Light gold
Nose - Wet clay hits first, then a lot of rye spice.  Then charred oak, tree bark, Bit O'Honey, and stale peanuts.  Gave it some time......minty candy canes and an odd farmy note.
Palate - The clay, stale peanuts, and Bit O'Honey carry right over.  There's a lot of yeast in here.  Then creamed corn, rye seeds, more of that bland peanut thing, and charred corn on the cob.
Finish - Very drying.  Generic barrel char, polenta, and a hint of the Bit O'Honey.  Salty and tart.

OLD TAYLOR 6 YEAR OLD (1996)
Color - Medium gold
Nose - Candied nail polish at first.  Then it recovers with vanilla extract, corn, baked bananas, and young rum.  Then there's butterscotch, caramel chews, pencil shavings, and a hint of maple syrup.  The vanilla and caramel explodes over time.
Palate - Mellow.  Toffee, corn syrup (but not sweet), vanilla, taffy, caramel, and white bread toast.  Some barley too, strong enough to make it seem like there's some blended Scotch in the mix.  That ABV leaves the texture a little on the thin side.  But it's very drinkable.
Finish - Sweetness kicks in more here.  Hint of sea salt, a little of the taffy.  But overall, brief.

JIM BEAM BLACK LABEL (2013)
Color - Dark(ish) gold
Nose - Bit O'Honey again.  Fresh peanuts this time.  Cherry syrup and corn syrup.  Minty and piney rye notes give way to burnt oak.  A hint of molasses.  The farmy note is more pleasant here than it is in the White Label.
Palate -  A lot of that minty rye.  Bit O'Honey, again.  A little salt, vanilla, hint of lemon, and peanut dust left at the bottom of the bag.  Thoroughly inoffensive.  It's denser than the previous two, perhaps thanks to those extra three ABV points.
Finish - Shortish, though longer than the 6yo.  Oak shows up the most here as char and bark.  Subtle notes of corn, caramel, and vanilla.

But then, a twist...

I fashioned each of these into mini highballs.  Southern California never had a winter after an extensive summer, so I'm always on the lookout for a good bourbon & soda.

As highballs:

JB White Label
Nose - Clay, Bit O'Honey, peanuts. Again.
Palate - Peanuts in caramel.......but then something unpleasant.  Rotten peanuts and plaster?
Finish - Very aggressive, unfortunately.

OT 6 year old
Nose - Maple syrup.  Oloroso?!  Elmer's glue.
Palate - Toffee and caramel.  Vanilla with a hint of citrus.
Finish - Stays plain, but doesn't offend. Though there's something kind of phenolic floating around.

JB Black Label
Nose - Baby powder, sawdust, peanut brittle, and creamed corn.
Palate - Nice and even.  Lightly sweet.  Creamiest of the three.  Vanillas and caramels.  So this is what I'm not tasting on the plane!
Finish - A little peppery spice creeps in to meet the vanilla.

Whew.

Firstly, the two current Beams are definitely related.  The rye is so much louder in them than the '90ish Old Taylor.  The Black and White have those oft-repeated peanut and Bit O'Honey notes, which are totally absent from the Old Taylor.  Is this due to a change in mashbill?  Beam certainly doesn't leak this sort of information easily, so if anyone knows more, please share.

Next, White Label wasn't as bad as I'd anticipated.  I was ready to exercise the expanse of my 100 point rating system, but that won't be needed, yet.  I'm not a fan of it, but it's still a step better (less sweet, less unbalanced, less stomach turning) than Jack Daniel's.  But it does get rather ugly when hit with club soda.

So then it becomes a battle between Old Taylor 6 and Jim Beam 8.  They are different bourbons, which made this Taste Off more fun.  Once aired out, Old Taylor has the better nose.  The palate is a fight to a draw.  But JBBL wins the finish scrum, because it actually has a finish.  AND, Jim Beam Black Label makes for a decent bourbon and soda.

Overall, I'll give Jim Beam Black Label the edge because of its flexibility and that extra texture in the mouth.  I can't really recommend any of these whole heartedly in a 750mL bottle, but if you can find a 200mL bottle of Jim Beam Black Label for $5-$7 it'll be a good test to see if you want to spend $16-$20 on a 750mL.

If you feel strongly in favor of or against my findings, let me know.  Some of you folks have a longer relationship to Jim B than I.  Has he treated you right?

JIM BEAM WHITE LABEL

Availability - Freaking everywhere

Pricing - $12-$18 (750mL)

Rating - 73

OLD TAYLOR 6 YEAR OLD (BEAM-ERA)

Availability - More so in the Midwest, less so in the East and West

Pricing - $4-$5 for 200mL; for the current Sazerac version $12-$15 (750mL), $18-20 (1L)

Rating - 80  (if it had any sort of finish it would be at least an 83)

JIM BEAM BLACK LABEL

Availability - Everywhere

Pricing - $16-$25

Rating - 81

Back to the single malts tomorrow...

Single Malt Report: The Arran Malt, Single Sherry Cask #391

Last year, I briefly mentioned that I was exploring sherry more deeply in order to sort out my sherried whisky issues.  In the thirteen months since, my tolerance and enjoyment of those whiskies has grown.  But I've also discovered that I really Really REALLY do not like sherry.  From the tart prunes and stale raisins in the palate, to the consistently off-putting finish that makes me want to slap myself in the face until the aftertaste falls out, there's nothing I actually enjoy about the process of drinking sherry (whether it's a $5 bottle or a $25 bottle).  Comparatively, sherried whisky is a pleasure.

With that in mind, today I'll follow up yesterday's Arran Single Bourbon Cask post with a review of one of their Single Sherry Casks.  Here it is matched up with a glass of sherry.

The sherry is an Oloroso from Lustau.  It's described as a nuttier, drier Oloroso.  Perhaps, but after choking down half the bottle's contents over the last two weeks, I'm dumping the rest down the sink.  Life's too short, plus the bottle took up valuable space in the fridge.

Next to the sherry, the Arran Single Sherry Cask whisky was subtle and nuanced.  Thank you to Jordan for this sample as well.  (Also, see Jordan's post about this same whisky.)  This was a fun swap.

Distillery: Isle of Arran Distillery
Type: Single Malt
Ownership: Isle of Arran Distillers Ltd.
Region: Isle of Arran, Scotland

Age: March 19, 1997 to June 16, 2008 (11 years)

Maturation: ex-sherry cask

Cask: 391

Alcohol by Volume: 55.4%
Bottle: 64 out of 276

NEAT
The color is light gold, lighter than many bourbon cask whiskies its age.  The nose starts with a little more alcohol prickle than yesterday's whisky had.  Beneath the heat, a nuts-to-cheese-to-malt progression evolves.  Maybe some fresh fruit in the distance.  At first there's a hint of milk chocolate, but after some time it expands and expands until there's a wall of soft Milk Duds and 3 Musketeers.  The palate is salty and nutty.  Thought it's not sweet, the chocolate bar notes from the nose are present here as well.  Chocolate malt too.  Maybe a hint of oloroso.  And a nice bit of tangerine juice.  That citrus note turns into something more like orange peel in the moderate, but tangy finish.  Chocolate and toffee.  Then, Rolos!

WITH WATER
Just a few droplets here.  Brighter peppery spices develop in the nose.  Vanilla bean, coriander, cardamom, caramel, and lime peel.  The palate is sweeter and malty with toffee and oranges (juice and peel).  More orange peel in the finish.  Then chocolate and caramel, dusted with chili powder.

This is Exhibit #5437 in the case against Macallan's "Darker = Higher Quality" marketing malarkey.  This whisky is better than many mahogany-shaded "luxury" drams.  Similar to Jordan's thoughts in his post, I think this particular single cask was an refill.  And with all of the caramel and vanilla things going on, I wouldn't doubt if the barrel had been fashioned from American oak.

While I found more complexity and enjoyment in the bourbon cask sample, I really did enjoy all of the sherry cask's chocolatey notes.  I also think it would stand up pretty well if matched up against GlenDronach's regular (non-CS) range.  That's impressive considering the Arran distillery's youth.

As far as recommendations go, consider your palate.  Mine prefers ex-bourbon casks, but it still enjoys this whisky.  If you require a first-fill sherry blast, then this isn't quite that.  But all the milk chocolate notes will likely appeal.

Please note that this Single Cask belongs to that earlier stage of SCs bottled between 2007 and 2011, not the current more premium Single Cask bottlings with the fancier packaging.  This reviewed Single Cask whisky is a few years younger than the current versions, but also $30-$50 cheaper.

Availability - Disappearing, though may be at some specialty retailers
Pricing - $80-$100
Rating - 86